Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid


kmt_sesh

Recommended Posts

SC: But because of what we now know of Howard-Vyse's lack of moral compass, the charge will always be levelled against him that once a fraud always a fraud. The leopard does not change its spots. Consensus Egyptology must PROVE by scientific means if possible (and I have suggested some ways that this might be done) that the inscriptions are genuine. In my view Howard-Vyse's dubious character casts too much of a dark shadow and make his claimed discovery as dubious as himself. We need empirical, scientific evidence to settle the matter--not the word of a man of dubious character. What has science got to say on the matter?

SC

Creighton,

You know nothing about Howard Vyse’s moral compass, beyond what you’ve made up on a thin excuse to suit yourself.

If moral judgement there must be, certain basic principles of justice apply. Any such judgement should be proportionate to the offence, proportionate to the evidence for the offence, duly considerate of context and free from any extraneous agenda.

You are all agenda.

The injustice of your treatment of Vyse puts your moral compass in question, not his.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all agenda.

SC: Nope. Just dealing with the facts as they are, not how I would like them to be. You should try it.

The question as to the authenticity of these inscriptions will only be settled when Consensus Egyptology decides to get the finger out and do some real science. What are they afraid of? In the absence of such then this debate is set to continue ad infinitum because, whether you like or not, accept it or not, Howard-Vyse's reputation has been tarnished by his past activities and thereby his trustworthiness has been placed in question. We need another witness--science.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but, I examined the actual facsimile sheets, not just images.

Pencil outline, paint fill.

M.

OK;

I had a quick look at an enlargement of Hills pic and youre right, I jumped the gun...not calligraphy..

The original has me a bit stymied, as presumably it was done quickly...and on a rough surface...but again another online photo.

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Creighton's Post #214:

SC: There is simply no way that Hill could not have rendered the large Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber without placing three clear and distinct lines with proper spacing into the circle of that cartouche and have it signed off as a true copy if it wasn’t exactly what was in the chamber at that time. And there is simply no way that Sitchin could have failed to identify such a hatched disc on a 1:1 scale. Whythen didn’t Sitchin observe those three lines with proper spacing (that we see there today) in Hill’s drawing of that cartouche that had been signed off as a true copy? Is Hill's 1:1 original drawing of this cartouche somehow different to what is in the chamber today? THAT is the implication (if Sitchin is right) and THAT is why I want to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes--and actually, why YOU should be wanting to see them too.

then Post #243

So, where does this leave us? I think the evidence from Hill’s drawings (which I have now seen) completely scotches Sitchin’s claim from “Journeys”, to wit:

So Scott since it all goes to credibility and "a leopard doesn't change its spots" you said, don't you think you should admit that perhaps you stuck your foot in your mouth this time? Hmmm...?

After all, if we are to go with your "one size fits all" mentality then your creditility is just as lacking as Sitchins.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should answer your question (insofar as it concerns the Seti temple).

SC: Just as I thought.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Creighton's Post #214:

then Post #243

So Scott since it all goes to credibility and "a leopard doesn't change its spots" you said, don't you think you should admit that perhaps you stuck your foot in your mouth this time? Hmmm...?

After all, if we are to go with your "one size fits all" mentality then your creditility is just as lacking as Sitchins.

cormac

SC: I fail to see why. I am questioning why Sitchin DIDN'T observe the horizontals in Hill's drawing. I am implying in that statement that he SHOULD have seen them (since that is what we see in the chamber today) but that I couldn't understand why he didn't see them. And then I say in my subsequent statement that the evidence from Hill's drawings proves that the horizontals WERE there and that Sitchin was obviously wrong. What is it about this you are not getting? And by the way--why are you resorting to personalizing this discussion? My credibility has nothing to do with this question about Howard-Vyse or Sitchin. But why should I be surprised--it's the same tried and tested tactic employed by Egypt-apologists everywhere; if you can't beat the idea, try beating its author. Silly.

As for your 'one-size-fits-all' - try visiting a few court cases. As soon as any witness is found to be lying, cheating or fraudulent in any way, at any time in their life, the prosecution uses their past misdemeanor to present the individual as an 'unreliable witness'. It's not the ideal system but that is how it works.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but, I examined the actual facsimile sheets, not just images.

Pencil outline, paint fill.

M.

OK;

I had a quick look at an enlargement of Hills pic and youre right, I jumped the gun...not calligraphy..

The original has me a bit stymied, as presumably it was done quickly...and on a rough surface...but again another online photo.

Cheers

What are the dimensions of Hill's copy ?

There might have been pencil outlines but the 'fill' is calligraphic strokes, not 'painted' in.... as to what I deduce from what I can see, chinese calligraphy lessons makes use of this since a long time ago ....

080908-midautumn.png

http://goodcharacter...s/teachers.html

Hill wasn't just copying the 'shapes' he was also copying the 'strokes' to me.

The end strokes ink pause 'pool' shows Hill 'saw' the strokes sequence and tried to copy it too.

I believe this to be critical when assessing this particular graffiti

The pencil 'out lining' is most evident on the 'border' ring, as that was the part that caused Hill most problems to copy.

Edited by third_eye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: I fail to see why. I am questioning why Sitchin DIDN'T observe the horizontals in Hill's drawing. I am implying in that statement that he SHOULD have seen them (since that is what we see in the chamber today) but that I couldn't understand why he didn't see them. And then I say in my subsequent statement that the evidence from Hill's drawings proves that the horizontals WERE there and that Sitchin was obviously wrong. What is it about this you are not getting? And by the way--why are you resorting to personalizing this discussion? My credibility has nothing to do with this question about Howard-Vyse or Sitchin. But why should I be surprised--it's the same tried and tested tactic employed by Egypt-apologists everywhere; if you can't beat the idea, try beating its author. Silly.

As for your 'one-size-fits-all' - try visiting a few court cases. As soon as any witness is found to be lying, cheating or fraudulent in any way, at any time in their life, the prosecution uses their past misdemeanor to present the individual as an 'unreliable witness'. It's not the ideal system but that is how it works.

SC

No you weren't "implying" anything since you specifically said, in part, "there is no way". That's a pretty definitive (it's either black or white) statement with no way out. So by that your own creditility is just as questionable as you claim Vyse's is. Or is it just that you hold others to higher standards that you simply can't meet? Hypocritical, if true.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you weren't "implying" anything since you specifically said, in part, "there is no way". That's a pretty definitive (it's either black or white) statement with no way out. So by that your own creditility is just as questionable as you claim Vyse's is. Or is it just that you hold others to higher standards that you simply can't meet? Hypocritical, if true.

cormac

SC: You are attempting here to twist what I said by taking my words out of their proper context. Here is the full paragraph and context:

SC: And there is simply no way that Sitchin could have failed to identify such a hatched disc on a 1:1 scale. Why then didn’t Sitchin observe those three lines with proper spacing (that we see there today) in Hill’s drawing of that cartouche that had been signed off as a true copy? Is Hill's 1:1 original drawing of this cartouche somehow different to what is in the chamber today? THAT is the implication (if Sitchin is right) and THAT is why I want to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes--and actually, why YOU should be wanting to see them too.

SC: And as you know and is evident from my subsequent posts, I waited to see the actual evidence of Hill's facsimiles from the BM before making any judgement. So, it seems Cormac, old boy, that it is YOU that is casting aspersions around here by taking remarks of mine out of their proper context. Naughty, naughty. And we have to ask - what does this say about your own credibility? Doesn't look too good to me. (You're the one who opened the door to personalizing the discussion here).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the dimensions of Hill's copy ?

There might have been pencil outlines but the 'fill' is calligraphic strokes, not 'painted' in.... as to what I deduce from what I can see, chinese calligraphy lessons makes use of this since a long time ago ....

080908-midautumn.png

http://goodcharacter...s/teachers.html

Hi third_eye;

Just to confirm; Im seeing a single brush width that forms the oval circle of the cartouche in Hills copy, you can even see where he reloads the bru****hat seems like a confident line to me as opposed to coloring in. It looks to me like Hill has used the same brush width throughout.

But its a low resolution internet photo...and this can play tricks..which is why I backed down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi third_eye;

Just to confirm; Im seeing a single brush width that forms the oval circle of the cartouche in Hills copy, you can even see where he reloads the bru****hat seems like a confident line to me as opposed to coloring in. It looks to me like Hill has used the same brush width throughout.

But its a low resolution internet photo...and this can play tricks..which is why I backed down

Why ? :lol:

Are we in peril ? Am i ? :lol:

Hiya jules99 ... I apologise if I come across as abrasive, I do it in jest as the 'stiff upper lip' gentleman. ;)

Yep, I concur about Hill's brush, in fact its the most intriguing quality of the copy, to me at least. I did a bit of Chinese Calligraphy but much more on the history so qualities like brush strokes is the first things that pops out at me when I see things rendered in calligraphic styles.

From Hill's copy what I can tell is he did the characters left to right, top to bottom left, the second character confused him a bit, maybe because the original wasn't very clear, on the third character he alternated the strokes on the bottom, and you are right, he refreshed the brush, so second character and half of the third character is the same 'stroke'

From the oval ring I can guess he had difficulties getting the proportions correct, he made guidelines and made an assured and bold 'flat' stroke ie same 'width' throughout. He did fill in some places though on the border ring, I can see it being to patch the 'dry' edged of the initial stroke, the fill wasn't balanced on the brush.

I am not an expert but from what I see I agree with you, it wasn't colored in. Hill can script very well

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: You are attempting here to twsit what I said by taking my words out of context. Here is the full paragraph:

SC: And as you know and is evident from my subsequent posts, I waited to see the actual evidence of Hill's facsimiles from the BM before making any judgement. So, it seems Cormac, old boy, that it is YOU that is casting aspersions around here by taking remarks of mine out of their proper context. Naughty, naughty. And we have to ask - what does this say about your own credibility? Doesn't look too good to me. (You're the one who opened the door to personalizing the discussion here).

SC

Actually you didn't since you made this statement before any information concerning the actual facsimiles was presented. Which means you presumed to know what the truth way ahead of the facts. BTW, there's a difference between "I don't understand how he couldn't know..." and "there's no way". A difference which apparently escapes you.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you didn't since you made this statement before any information concerning the actual facsimiles was presented. Which means you presumed to know what the truth way ahead of the facts. BTW, there's a difference between "I don't understand how he couldn't know..." and "there's no way". A difference which apparently escapes you.

cormac

SC: Let’s break it down Cormac since you are obviously about to give birth to a couple of kittens here.

SC: And there is simply no way that Sitchin could have failed to identify such a hatched disc on a 1:1 scale.

SC: On a 1:1 scale of the drawings, Sitchin would have noticed the hatchings. If you think it is possible that on such a scaled drawing Sitchin could not to have noticed them, then do explain how that might be so.

SC: Why then didn’t Sitchin observe those three lines with proper spacing (that we see there today) in Hill’s drawing of that cartouche that had been signed off as a true copy?

SC: This is not a statement but a legitimate question.

SC: Is Hill's 1:1 original drawing of this cartouche somehow different to what is in the chamber today?

SC: Same again. This is not a statement but a legitimate question.

SC: THAT is the implication (if Sitchin is right) and THAT is why I want to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes—and actually, why YOU should be wanting to see them too.

SC: A qualified statement (“if Sitchin is right”). Followed by the statement of desiring to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes in order to have the questions above answered.

And when I received the information from the BM my questions were answered—Sitchin wasn’t right, he was wrong. And this was explained subsequently by me when I had been furnished with the full and proper facts from the BM.

Does this now make more sense to you, Cormac? Now go away and don’t darken my door again with this twaddle.

Jeeeeeez…..

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear ... shall we have some tea ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear ... shall we have some tea ?

I think hard liquor would be more helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear ... shall we have some tea ?

Only if it's Earl Grey. :D

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear ... shall we have some tea ?

SC: Make mine's an Irish coffee.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think hard liquor would be more helpful.

sorry boss ...

521457_10151385958564022_1120064392_n.jpg

I'm too drunk to go search the bar ....

Only if it's Earl Grey. :D

cormac

SC: Make mine's an Irish coffee.

SC

crumpets ? :D

Edited by third_eye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: Let’s break it down Cormac since you are obviously about to give birth to a couple of kittens here.

SC: On a 1:1 scale drawing of the drawings, Sitchin would have noticed the hatchings. If you think it is possible that on such a scaled drawing Sitchin could not to have noticed them, then do explain how that might be so.

SC: This is not a statement but a legitimate question.

SC: Same again. This is not a statement but a legitimate question.

SC: A qualified statement (“if Sitchin is right”). Followed by the statement of desiring to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes in order to have the questions above answered.

And when I received the information from the BM my questions were answered—Sitchin wasn’t right, he was wrong. And this was explained subsequently by me when I had been furnished with the full and proper facts from the BM.

Does this now make more sense to you, Cormac? Now go away and don’t darken my door again.

Jeeeeeez…..

SC

I don't want to butt in to your debate with cormac, Scott, but I'm glad the material from the British Museum was able to clarify this for you and others. Sitchin was of dubious character to begin with, and I am not sure how you are thinking of this now that you have the evidence, but something seems clear to me: Sitchin either never actually saw the original drawings for himself and lied about it in his books, or he saw the drawings but lied about the Aa1 glyphs in his book. Either way it proves beyond a doubt, once again, that Sitchin is not a source to be trusted.

You are still holding to Vyse's past and that of his father's, in the election fraud years before events at Giza. I don't think anyone here doubts Vyse was of questionable character, although how much of this was put upon him years earlier by his father and their patron might need further research. I myself am not inclined (or interested) in doing so because the election issues do not concern Giza. So it seems to me, now that the paleographical end of the debate has been stripped from Sitchin and weighs more favorably in Vyse's direction, you're still set on viewing Vyse as a fraud not because of events at Giza but because of shady elections years earlier at the other end of the world.

This is not evidence of fraud at Giza, nor can it be considered as such in any clear manner. Moreover, do not expect either the Egyptian government or Egyptologists to date the graffiti, as has been stated repeatedly in this thread. There is likely no reliable way to do so now, given the decades of tourist contamination and the thorough cleaning of the chambers conducted by the SCA. It will not happen. This is not something worth holding onto, I guarantee you.

Concluding for now, I'm not sure where you're going with Stower's assistance regarding the coloration of glyphs. He has been very helpful in this debate, and concerning the color issue has explained it the same way I would and, in fact, have: colors do not determine the sound values of glyphs. Their context in a word or name does.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

]KMS: Sitchin was of dubious character to begin with, and I am not sure how you are thinking of this now that you have the evidence,

SC: The evidence we now have (as a result of recent investigations at the BM) is of Sitchin being economical with the facts and of concocting a composite Raufu image which he wrongly attributed to Mr Hill. That amounts to fraudulent practice in my book. But this has only been confirmed recently by Hill’s drawings in the BM. I’n not sure what you mean with “…to begin with…”? Do you mean Sitchin was born a fraud?

…but something seems clear to me: Sitchin either never actually saw the original drawings for himself and lied about it in his books, or he saw the drawings but lied about the Aa1 glyphs in his book.

SC: I don’t particularly care what the exact circumstances were. The important thing is that he has now been conclusively outed as a fraud in this issue. He fabricated evidence and falsely attributed it to Mr Hill.

KMS: Either way it proves beyond a doubt, once again, that Sitchin is not a source to be trusted.

SC: I can agree with this now that we are in possession of better evidence. Sitchin’s books should be regarded as untrustworthy.

KMS: You are still holding to Vyse's past and that of his father's, in the election fraud years before events at Giza. I don't think anyone here doubts Vyse was of questionable character,

SC: Agreed.

KMS: … although how much of this was put upon him years earlier by his father and their patron might need further research.

SC: He was a big boy. He was in the military. I rather doubt he would be so easily pushed around and especially so given that he would have known that indulging in such practices was illegal and he could have gone to jail for it. It had been illegal for around 100 years. And yet he STILL went along with it, went with the flow. He didn’t (as far as I am presently aware) stop to say, “No—this is illegal. And not only is it illegal, it is morally wrong.” The man had no moral compass. I hardly think anyone planning an illegal act would have written their thoughts on it down anywhere.

KMS: I myself am not inclined (or interested) in doing so because the election issues do not concern Giza.

SC: No one has said it involves Giza, at least not directly. But indirectly it does because this question of Howard-Vyse’s corrupt electioneering, his lack of a moral compass casts a dark cloud over his later claims of discovery in the Great Pyramid. It simply does and there is no way around it. Put simply: was Howard-Vyse completely trustworthy? If we are truly honest with ourselves we have to answer “No, he wasn’t.” That’s the honest answer. And it is because of that honest answer to ourselves that we must question Howard-Vyse as a reliable witness. I simply do not consider him to be such.

KMS: So it seems to me, now that the paleographical end of the debate has been stripped from Sitchin and weighs more favorably in Vyse's direction,

SC: I see the matter quite differently to you. The evidence we have are the inscriptions and I do not think that it can any longer be tenable that the default position considers them as authentic. Their authenticity is questionable and cannot and should no longer be taken for granted. Then there are a number of key witnesses around that evidence. The evidence is separate and distinct from the testimonies of the key witnesses involved. If we cannot trust any of the key witnesses then we must look to another means (another witness) to prove the authenticity of the inscriptions. Some or all of the inscriptions may well be authentic but I think we need other witnesses to determine this because I do not trust the word of any of the key witnesses that we have on record. And that other ‘witness’ could prove to be science with a thorough re-examination of the evidence.

KMS: …you're still set on viewing Vyse as a fraud not because of events at Giza but because of shady elections years earlier at the other end of the world.

SC: As would any prosecutor in any court room.

KMS: This is not evidence of fraud at Giza, nor can it be considered as such in any clear manner.

SC: I have not claimed it to be ‘evidence’ of such. But it goes to the reliability of the witness. If he is found to be an unreliable witness then whatever testimony he has presented must be treated with scepticism. And that is what I am doing-- as should you.

KMS: Moreover, do not expect either the Egyptian government or Egyptologists to date the graffiti, as has been stated repeatedly in this thread. There is likely no reliable way to do so now, given the decades of tourist contamination and the thorough cleaning of the chambers conducted by the SCA. It will not happen. This is not something worth holding onto, I guarantee you.

SC: We will not know this until we actually get some forensic scientists to go in there and re-examine the ‘body’. Cold cases have been known to present new evidence and especially so when new scientific tests are developed. I would not discount this so readily. Get the forensics people in there first. If they find nothing or the chambers have become too contaminated then fine, THAT is when you can make such a claim. Not before.

KMS: Concluding for now, I'm not sure where you're going with Stower's assistance regarding the coloration of glyphs. He has been very helpful in this debate, and concerning the color issue has explained it the same way I would and, in fact, have: colors do not determine the sound values of glyphs. Their context in a word or name does.

SC: I am sure some fine day we’ll come back to this.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why ? :lol:

Are we in peril ? Am i ? :lol:

Hiya jules99 ... I apologise if I come across as abrasive, I do it in jest as the 'stiff upper lip' gentleman. ;)

Yep, I concur about Hill's brush, in fact its the most intriguing quality of the copy, to me at least. I did a bit of Chinese Calligraphy but much more on the history so qualities like brush strokes is the first things that pops out at me when I see things rendered in calligraphic styles.

From Hill's copy what I can tell is he did the characters left to right, top to bottom left, the second character confused him a bit, maybe because the original wasn't very clear, on the third character he alternated the strokes on the bottom, and you are right, he refreshed the brush, so second character and half of the third character is the same 'stroke'

From the oval ring I can guess he had difficulties getting the proportions correct, he made guidelines and made an assured and bold 'flat' stroke ie same 'width' throughout. He did fill in some places though on the border ring, I can see it being to patch the 'dry' edged of the initial stroke, the fill wasn't balanced on the brush.

I am not an expert but from what I see I agree with you, it wasn't colored in. Hill can script very well

Thanks for that; the other thing Im thinking then is that the genuine glyph exhibits similar artistic merit to Hills facsimile yet is called workers graffiti? To me it would need to be the work of a scribe or a trained individual... surely not a worker. It would be interesting to see the other glyphs

Cheers,

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KMS: …you're still set on viewing Vyse as a fraud not because of events at Giza but because of shady elections years earlier at the other end of the world.

SC: As would any prosecutor in any court room.

And as a prosecutor I'd say you should be recused from the case Scott. Since while you wish to keep Vyse to a rather high standard you have been rather selective, to say the least, in how you've presented Sitchin. Particularly since he's responsible for the prior fabrication of the whole "Nibiru" and aliens using humans to mine gold crap. This should have thrown out anything he'd said on the matter of the Khufu Cartouches, in order to meet your credibility requirements. Yet at least initially, it seems that you bought it hook, line and sinker.

And since this is 2013 and you've been trying to present the whole "forgery" idea in one way or another for at least a few years now, one has to wonder why now you've finally decided to elicit the help of the British Museum. Compared to most of us, it's practically in your back yard. Perhaps Sitchin wasn't the only one being "economical" with the facts.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Khufu had actually built the great pyramids,he would have put more of these glyphs in there.Also now i am convinced that Khufu didn't usurp the great pyramids and then put his cartouche on them, as again he would have put more material out there if he had done so.

That is modern thinking being projected onto those who lived in the past. There is no evidence to support this idea of yours.

The clue to who really built the pyramids would lie in those glyphs(if they exist), until then khufu cartouche's in plain site could easily have been forged as correctly pointed out by Sitchin.

Maybe someday soon, someone will use a fiber optic cable to snake around and look for such glyphs.

Then likely accusations of tiny little paint brushes will come forward to explain how they were fraudulently created.

What is the writing/painting/scribing material/utensils used here ?

The ends looks like 'brush' tips strokes .... to me ... Eastern Calligraphic stylistic strokes ...

It almost looks like it was finger painted to me. Kids can make thin and thick lines of paint with just a finger, but usually the paint is not applied evenly...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has already been stated but probably requires elaboration, on the subject of materials used for painting. Colors shading from red to brown were usually derived from red ochre, and black typically came from charcoal. Other minerals were also used, of course. The main writing implement was reed pens, shaved to a point for fine lines or mashed at the tip for broader strokes. Something akin to paint brushes were made from plant fibers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

khufu_cartouche1.jpg

notice the width if the ring at lower right of image, the tips of the 'right feet' of the first and third characters gentlemen, looks 'brush' to me, if reeds then the paint or ink needs to be of a certain viscosity to both hold (on the reed) and flow (controlled)

I don't see dry application here at all .... ie charcoal

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.